Daybreak - the launch onwards

You can't expect a programme to break-even after 3 weeks.

No regular programme like this ever starts fully formed and then leaves everything alone, they all change and evolve. It's not part of some scheme to 'revive' it, it's just part of the programme's ongoing development.

Probably because it's the most recognisable landmark behind them. Of course at most of the time there is no 'general panorama' as it's dark, hence the need to light up something in the background

Um, why not?? Surely after heavy promotion, poaching two very well known hosts and non stop press coverage, the show should be thriving?

There have been what, 15 Daybreaks? After 15 editions of any TV show, it should be clear to see if it is a flop or not.

Anyone noticed Christine has got her first ITV show outside Daybreak tonight?

Simply Red: For the Last Time tonight on ITV1

Because experience shows that promotion (in spite of what marketing and promotion departments like to think) isn't actually that effective, and it takes time to break viewing habits, irrespective of talent...



Total rubbish. You can't compare 15 editions of Daybreak with a 15 part peak-time drama. Daily shows take time to establish themselves, they aren't "appointment" TV in the same way that other shows are.

It took The One Show - and Breakfast for that matter - a lot longer than three weeks to be climb in ratings terms. (Years not days...)

Yep - she's replaced Myleene (who used to do similar ITV1 shows like Saturday Night Divas)! Again!

And just as on The One Show - she was about 10 times better.

Obviously you don't understand the concept of 'break-even'... back to GCSE Business Studies for you

It's never really stated in reports but I don't think the ratings reports are even like for like considering Daybreak is now reported as a separate show to Lorraine. Lorraine is said to be closer to a million, so when merged with the Daybreak ratings they're pretty much where GMTV was, assuming the GMTV ratings were for 6.00-9.25am.

And interesting too how despite the press being quick to dismiss Daybreak, Breakfast doesn't seem to have picked up a single viewer since it's launch and has remained pretty much exactly on 1.4m.

Wonder if GMTV viewers are switching from Daybreak to something other than Breakfast? (Radio, Sky News, other multichannel output etc.?)

As you say though, the change in reporting between GMTV (incl Lorraine) and Daybreak and Lorraine separately has also skewed things a bit.

It would be interesting to see the 5-minute and 15-minute breakdowns of the ratings so a like-for-like comparison between Breakfast and Daybreak between 6.00am and 8.30am can be seen.

Having seen said figures for the first week - I don't think Daybreak came close to Breakfast in any of them. Not sure what they look like now.

I wasn't comparing it to a peak-time drama. Some daily shows do indeed take time to establish themselves but this is simply a reworking of an already established show, and after 3 weeks it should be clear whether something is working or not.




I understand exactly what 'break even' means. The only real extra expense ITV has gone to is presenter salaries, and the bulk of that can be written off on prime time shows. And lets not forget that GMTV was profitable when it came off the air, so Daybreak already had a fairly decent starting point.

Whilst break even is probably not the right term to use, the original question was 'is Daybreak hemorrhaging money?' If it is showing signs of this, even after just 3 weeks, it can't be written off with a comment like 'well you can't expect any better in just a few weeks'.

That's a matter of opinion. I think quite a few elements of Daybreak have changed since the GMTV days - not least the on-screen team and the "wheel". (The times in the hour that things like news, regional news, sport and weather happen at) Viewers take a while to get used to a new "wheel" - and new presenters.

Of course you can have a runaway success in 15 shows (or 3 weeks) - but that doesn't mean you can't also have a slow burner.

All that said - things aren't looking amazingly positive for Daybreak at the moment. The tabloid vultures are already circling...




They've spent a good couple of million on promotion, upgrading to HD, building a new set, commissioning an entirely new on-screen look (music, titles, graphics etc.), recruited new presenters and production staff on pretty healthy salaries. That's going to take quite a few premium rate quizzes to pay for...



Daybreak costs more to make than GMTV, and is currently getting lower audiences (though whether the audience demographics have changed may complicate things a bit) - which itself was seen to be failing. If it costs more, and fewer people are watching - then that is not a great business move.

The question is - will they continue to throw money at it (they could do with significant higher production values on their news output) or will they do something else?